Congress vs. the President: Seeking Information

The Supreme Court says that the President withholding information from the Congress and the Congress’ investigative powers are implied. The investigative powers of the Congress are to help enact the legislation, oversee the administrative process, and to protect its integrity. In 1795, Robert Randall's attempt at bribing senators introduced the investigative power of Congress to protect their dignity (177). 
Post-1978, there were three reasons to punish for contempt: the civil contempt-main objective is to extract information; crucial contempt-objective is punishment; and as shown with the Clinton Administration in 1995, those who ignore the Senate subpoena are issued a court subpoena as well as a citation for ignoring the first. Congress cannot compromise on individual rights stated in the First amendment during their investigative process - The 1881 Kilbourn case ruled that Congressional investigation must have some legislative purpose (183). 
The committee of investigators cannot go beyond the legislative scope outlined in their proposal-must respect individual rights. The committee must have more than two members to provide a non-biased conclusion. Watkins v. USA: Watkins’s refusal to identify ex HUAC members led to his conviction but he was acquitted due to lack of clarity in the evidence (185).
In the 1970 McSurely case, a couple won damages against Senator McClellan. The courts held that they weren’t immune from liability of illegal seize and searches and weren’t protected under the Speeches and Debates Clause (189). The President, however, has absolute immunity in civil suits regarding his official acts but not criminal suits - Parla Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment and he tried to claim presidential immunity. The courts held that the immunity only extended to official acts and his mix up with Monica Lewinsky and his decision to lie cost him a settlement of $850,000 (192).
The vote to impeach a president may not be punishment, but a political move: In 1998 when Clinton was impeached, many senators who voted against his impeachment believed he was guilty but didn’t want him out of office (193). Only the House can impeach the President.
The removal of an executive official rests with the President and Congress isn’t entitled to that information. In 1950, President Truman denied the Senate's request for information on employees (201). It is difficult for Congress to obtain information about trial matters, but the existence of a trial isn’t a reason to withhold documents.
CIPA-courts have to screen the evidence used during trials to avoid defendants threatening Congress to reveal classified information if charges weren’t dropped. The courts cannot favor an executive officer but they must respect their security. 
Executive privilege is often compromised because judicial proceedings need substantive evidence, executives need confidentiality to have deliberations and the congress depends on information to make their decisions.



Sources: Constitutional Conflicts Between Congress and the President - Louis Fisher

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Analysis of poems in the Native Guard by Natasha Trethewey

Natasha Tretheway's collection of poems titled ‘Native Guard’ is a deeply emphatic account of instances in her life and her past that revolve around themes of death, family, prejudice, and freedom. These themes are hinted at throughout the poem weaved in with the distinct unique idea present in each section. After the first read, the difference of each section is very visible-the first chapter of the book is about her mother, second about the Civil War and the history of her town, and the final deals with her personal identity as a mixed-race woman. The famous phrase ‘life is a journey’ is brought put in her first poem in section I, titled Southern Crescent. The poem is able to effectively bring out how close Trethewey and her mother are; describing two instances of disappointment at the hands of two men (her mother’s father and husband) shows that the lives of Tretheway and her mom seem complete without male presence and they seem optimistic about the final train ride. Although ...
Read more

Environmental Ethics: Assessing Scale- Analysis of Morgan-Knapp and Goodman

‘There is no more neutrality in the world. You either have to be part of the solution, or you're going to be part of the problem.’- Eldridge Cleaver In ‘Consequentialism, Climate Harm and Individual Obligations’, Christopher Morgan-Knapp and Charles Goodman critique the argument that abiding by act-consequentialism assumes that individual emissions don’t matter because they are too minuscule. Building off their arguments, I am going to analyze the relevance of their theories and examples with the lens that climate changes disproportionally affects poorer, indigenous, and marginalized communities and conclude with a test that suggests the optimum size of an industry is based on the relationship between its emissions and the number of people dependent on it and what an environmentally oriented government should do. Morgan-Knapp and Goodman start by stating the commonly held view that act-consequentialism cannot provide any moral reason for individuals to voluntarily reduce the...
Read more